Actually, the problem is not “ militarism”, but the use of violence in many forms in order to promote narrow interests, against the principals of international law.

The use of terrorism is by far the most common international problem at present time. Iran uses it methodically, in Iraq, Lebanon & Gaza, and Syria is using it widely in the Middle East, and boldly holds a public conference of known terrorists in Damascus.

But the real danger is with failed regimes, which turn a country to a safe haven to terrorism, such as the case with Afghanistan, and bordering Pakistani regions, and of course the regimes which collaborate with terrorism, intentionally , and as a result of similar ideology , like the Sudan, which as a result of “Muslim brotherhood”, gets away with outright genocide. In general, if one cares to scratch the surface, one finds a common thread here… it is Islamic ideology which fuels regional & international campaigns of violence. The cynical use of fraudulent terminology which tries to cover it up by claims of localized disputes does not hold water. It is clear there is a common thread here, and it is not “a country”, but a faith, which spreads violence worldwide. This is what the “ local violence” has in common-China, Philippines, Indonesia, Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Spain, England, Israel, USA, Sudan, France and more.

This, exactly this is militarism!

Another problem is/will be the climate change and the different allocation of basic materials. It is/will be fought by militaristic means.

Your picture is highly distorted. Terrorism has been used historically by many non-muslims. Tim McVeigh in the US and the Zionist acts of terrorism in the 1940's were not related to Muslims. Remember, terrorism is a tactic and it is also used by nations in conducting war. In Vietman and in Iraq the US used B-52 carpet bombing in "shock and awe" attacks that were a form of terrorism. Israel uses rocket and artillary attacks against refugee camps as a form of terrorism against the Palestinians.

To believe that terrorism is limited to Muslims is a false belief. Terrorism as a tactic is very widespread and is not a religious based tactic.

I am not going to argue semantics, though there is a room for it here. I think it is long & pointless.

You can call every military operation “terrorism” if you wish. But the issue here is “legitimacy”.
The actions of states against states, backed by international law, are legitimate. not terrorism.

The targeting of civilian population (like the 9/11) is pure terrorism. American bombing in Baghdad was NOT targeting civilians, NOT using B-52 (WW2 weapon…) NOT “Carpet bombing”. Get your facts right FIRST, then try & argue.

And Sophia wrote – “About Israel, the funny thing is that a big portion of the population of Israel are persian and even they have day named after Iranian ancient king Cyrus the great, who is loved by Iranians too “

Or this “pearl” –“ Iran does not consider US as it's biggest enemy”

(Which explains their frequent use of the tern “the great Satan”, and the hostage taking of American diplomats….)

Nice joke. Let’s all use this type of “facts”…..
Arabs are Chinese, Chinese are Africans, Fools are geniuses, and ignorant are educated.

I beg to differ. The War Against Iraq by the United States started in 1991 and the US used carpet bombing with B-52's along the Iraqi lines. It was done intentionally as an act of terrorism against the Iraqi people.

Of course the "recognition of ligitimacy" by one's allies does not represent the truth and all wars that are not in the direct defense of one's nation are unjustifiable.

Of course this thread is about who presents the greatest threat to world peace and it is obvious that the country that engages most in war presents the biggest threat. In this the US wins (or loses) hands down.

The United States doesn't neccessarily act the most violent, but in terms of GLOBAL peace, I would definatly consider the USA the major contender.

__________________
Capitalism has always been a failure for the lower classes. It is now beginning to fail for the middle classes. - Howard Zinn

.
Russia are mos t threat t o peace.
because with Vladimir Putin. Putin do
stupi d thing when Russia supply nuclear delen to Iran. now Russia worry abaout Iran missiles cause t o war.

Since when is murder, massmurder, rapes, torture, bombardements to legitimate?

The US acts against international law: officially.

You claim nothing else than that the NATO would fight a clean war.

I suppose you do not know the airforce doctrine document by General Warden.
It is official: Battlefield of the Future

His ring system shows the main targets by the airforce:
1) Leadership
2) System Essentials
3) Infrastructure
4) Population
5) Fielded Military

He says also: "Contrary to Clausewitz, destruction of the enemy military is not the essence of war; the essence of war is convincing the enemy to accept your position, and fighting his military forces is at best a means to an end and at worst a total waste of time and energy."

This document is in force until today. So what is the main aim now? The bombings of civilians are often called "accidents". In fact it is the strategy. To bomb the population as long until they give up.

No, the US government considers Iran as its biggest enemy and the Iranian regime considers the US as its biggest enemy. So there's at least one point where both countries are in complete agreement.
That's so funny with your "enemies". As the US helped the Shah to gain the power and to install a regime in Iran, Iran was the US's "pearl". If Iran is now what it is today, then because of Western interferences.

lol
There isn't even the half of people they show in TV, cause the cameras zooms in and it looks like if there would be millions. Ever seen such protests in overview? No? This has its reasons, cause the shock effect would get lost.
Do you know why there counterdemonstrations? Would you demonstrate if you're living in a dictatorship? So it is ridiculous if Westerners desire from Muslims to demonstrate against Islamists, cause they simply can't. I would laugh if I'd live in a dictatorship and someone at world's end would desire from me to show that I'm not against this other world's end.
Do you know that these "demonstrations" are often staged by the regimes and people from the intelligence services take part often in these demonstrations? Do you know why the regimes do that stage? Cause they want to show that it would be much better if Western governments would negotiate with them than overthrow them.

Do you mean in 1979? I hope the people know a bit more about Iran's history than the occupation of the American embassy. That the Islamic revolution happened, has its (Western) causes...

Or let's say it as Western governments wants to show us: The West is good, shiny, wonderful, peaceful, rich, helpful...
ME is: bad because the are living muslims and all of them are islamists (we just trained Bin Laden), violates human rights (but we just back that), is poor (because we hold down their markets), hates the West (because Western reporters film staged demonstrations) and is all in all boring (because we do not know their culture, their history but judge over their people's mentality).

The Nato does, even if it is not necessary to act that brutal.

I hope ALL here know, that this said France, Germany and GB in WW1 (something like : "we're fighting militarism and imperialism and in the name of peace"), I hope ALL here know that Hitler said he wants peace, that in fact all war mongers said they want peace, but made war.
So why is there war if everybody wants peace?

You do not make war in the name of peace. It's disgusting if governments are claiming that.
Militarism is fighting for peace...? Would be new to me! Yes, it is the holy thing of human rights, peace and freedom and democraZy, that makes us crusaders and every other person who does not share this view is a traitor, crazy or paranoid.

That's up to you. I would consider that the West is much better to its own people than anywhere else, but I certainly wouldn't consider that the West is much better to people who live in other regions and have to suffer under regimes.

"Pure terrorism"? What are you on about?

Of course civilians are killed when the U.S. uses "smart" bombs and laser guided missiles. They don't always accurately reach their targets. Have there been thousands of civilians in Iraq killed since the start of the U.S. invasion? Yes.

Now...when speaking of the "pure terrorism" of 9-11 you seem to overlook the fact that the targets in question - the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and allegedly the U.S. Capitol building or the White House - were not civilian targets from the perspective of al Qaeda, they were considered military targets.

Just the same as when the U.S. conducted bombing raids over Baghdad during 'Shock & Awe' they targeted government buildings, financial buildings, etc...they were attacking Saddam Hussein's infrastructure. Are you not able to see that the selected targets on 9-11 were the same kind of targets? al Qaeda didn't fly 767s into huge suburban subdivisions, schools, or hospitals...they chose political/military targets the same as any force does in waging war.

Does that make it alright? From our perspective here in the west, no of course not...it sucks. Who wants planes knocking down buildings in our own backyard? No one. But do not make the mistake of assuming it's then alright for western powers to then do the same thing in other people's backyards.

It's all about perspective...there is no "right" side...but in the end I believe peace begets peace. Diplomacy, not bombs.

“From the perspective of AQ” ?

From the perspective of a murderer, you ought to die.

From the perspective of the rapist, you ought to enjoy it, and be grateful.

Should I go on with the true nature of your “rationale”?


Yes, there is such thing as international law.

Yes, there is a difference between attacking military targets, and terrorizing civilian one through mass murder.

The Americans used very expensive weapons in order to SPARE civilian casualties. Otherwise, they would have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians… which are not the case! BTW, they chose to attack office buildings outside working hours, just for this purpose, to spare innocent lives!

The only “carpet bombing” I know of in there was against ARMY , in the field, not a city!

Your accusations are not based on true facts, but on libels, fed by propagandists through
“Alternative media coverage” (as they call it..) . It is an alternative to true journalism, to professional standards, to being truthful in general.

As for diplomacy, it is an effective means when dealing with a certain structure which is somewhat close to yours. A state can apply diplomatic measures with a body which respects the rules, respects international law, and agrees to abide by some form of code of behavior. Those who do not recognize your right to exist, and seek your annihilation would not give up their aspiration, unless you are willing to commit suicide.
This is the very situation Israel faces with Hamas in Gaza, and Hizballa in Lebanon. They simply seek to destroy Israel, and commit genocide. Now blame Israel for not giving up to them through diplomacy….

If you call this “diplomacy” then I agree with you.

But unfortunately, I do not…..